Remember when the iPhone first came out. People complained about what it could not do. Did Apple scramble to add those features simply because people complained. Or has Apple been systematically and methodically adding features over time?
Understood... BUT... imagine if iPhone 5 came out and it did NOT have MMS, FaceTime, MultiTasking, Maps or even simultaneous voice/data... People would (just like now) have a sh*t-fit about it... and rightfully so. Why can't you see that perspective?
No I don't think that is it. The problem is that FCP created the concept of cheap, quality editing. And now that idea has rippled (ooh edit pun!) through the industry to the point that clients more and more don't want to pay fair rates for much of anything. The agency clients all have cost consultants who basically dictate what can be paid for a job. The agency gets less, the production company gets less and the editorial shop gets less. All because some bean counter doof thinks he knows what everything costs. And let me tell you, they don't. GSD&M voluntarily resigned BMW because the BMW cost consultants made it very difficult for the agency to make a decent profit. We had a hell of a time bidding jobs for BMW because they absolutely, under no circumstances would allow overages. If a job went south and ran over - too bad, you have to eat it. Even if it was BMW who made the last minute changes.
So after ten years of editing on the cheap, things have really started to unravel. Doesn't matter how much your edit software/hardware costs. People don't want to pay fair rates. And that is why no one really want to change edit horses midstream.
My first Avid system cost $75,000. It was expensive, but that is what it took to get into a highly skilled position with good $ compensation to go with it. It kept the amateurs out of the biz. Now, the line between serious pro and pro-sumer has been blurred. I find myself competing for work against talentless computer geeks, who have highly refined computer skills that pass as artistic talent and confuse clients. Then I get calls from creatives who complain the editor they chose can't tell a story. Hmmm.
When Apple transitioned form OS 9 to OS X. Apple was abandoning support for OS 9 and forcing everyone to buy all of their apps all over again for OS X. People were very upset about that.
OS X 1.0 performance was sluggish it was buggy. Apple wasn't transitioning OS 9 API's and Apple was breaking many of the old OS 9 protocols and implementing new protocols in OS X. Many of the newer OS X API's and protocols were not yet complete for software developers to work with.
That transition was far far messier and far more disruptive than what is going on with FCP X right now.
From my time as an Apple user. I've seen it over and over. Apple will force these admittedly disruptive and aggressive transitions. In the short term it makes people really angry. But in the long term everything end up working out for the better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightwaver67
Understood... BUT... imagine if iPhone 5 came out and it did NOT have MMS, FaceTime, MultiTasking, Maps or even simultaneous voice/data... People would (just like now) have a sh*t-fit about it... and rightfully so. Why can't you see that perspective?
Its the same story on the production side of things. Ten years ago the two primary options were to shoot on film or $100,000 HD gear which still did not match the quality of film. That barrier of entry kept the amateurs out and really helped separate the talented from the talentless.
Today every kid out of film school has a Canon 7D, MacBook Pro, FCP, and a dream. Talent may be optional. Its just the way things are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruceedits
My first Avid system cost $75,000. It was expensive, but that is what it took to get into a highly skilled position with good $ compensation to go with it. It kept the amateurs out of the biz. Now, the line between serious pro and pro-sumer has been blurred. I find myself competing for work against talentless computer geeks, who have highly refined computer skills that pass as artistic talent and confuse clients. Then I get calls from creatives who complain the editor they chose can't tell a story. Hmmm.
The best that can come out of this is that it becomes Apple's "New Coke". They bring back discontinued Coke Classic and everyone hugs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swift
What? You think Apple is run by people who just want to make colored sugar water?
Final Cut Pro 7 does not go away when you install X. It still works. I'm thinking it won't be long until the hullaballoo dies down and pros get embarrassed.
You misunderstand. The reference was to Coca Cola's changing of the Coke formula in 1985 (OK, I had to Google the date). They changed the recipe simply as a change for change's sake and the backlash was enough to force them to own up the debacle and reissue normal Coke as Coke Classic.
Also, everyone who is giving the obvious advice of using FCP7 instead as the answer misses the point. Editors are not saying "OMG! We can't work anymore!" They're saying "The team behind this product has no idea what goes into a pro edit job. Do I feel like sticking with these guys to see what else they come up with?"
There is no reason on God's green earth why audio assignments could not have been written into this overhaul except that it wasn't on the list of priorities. It has nothing to do with the task of creating a new 64 bit program. If you talk to someone who does audio for video in a large facility they'll say there can be no audio sweetening by them for a FCPX project (since there is also no more EDL,XML or OMF support, which *possibly* one can point to some valid reasons for killing), which rules out, well, the whole upper strata of video production.
No one is panicking they can't work. They just have no use for this version as is currently is and would like a 64 bit FCP with 2011 features that would be useful to them.
Considering that FCP X can import iMovie projects but not Final Cut Pro 7 projects, the "iMovie Pro" designation seems somewhat appropriate.
It may seem so...
But, the iMovie Project/Event structure is a subset of the FCPX structure -- so relatively easy to import.
FCP structures as we know them can be very complex -- to name a few:
-- multiple tracks
-- multi-layer compositing
-- many supplied and 3rd-party filters, effects, etc.
-- different overall structure (Project, Sequences, Bins)
-- loosely defined and enforced structure
-- much more granular control
FCP as we know it is much more flexible -- but this has costs.
I suspect that Apple and/or 3rd parties will provide tools to migrate many FCP projects to FCPX.
One of the exciting things about FCPX is its performance -- use of all CPU/GPU cores, top priority UI with background importing, transcoding, analysis. The background pauses/resumes as needed to maintain a consistent UI experience -- avoiding the beach ball if at all possible.
This is accomplished by very savvy design and implemented using OpenCL and GCD to exploit the OS and hardware to deliver the best possible user experience.
FCPX is the first Apple app (that I have seen) to do this -- it may be the poster child for a new type of app.
And, therein lies a problem -- how do you migrate FCP projects with a lot of stuff that doesn't even know about multiple CPU cores, let alone OpenCL and GCD?
For example I have a 3rd-party Karaoke plugin that does synchronized subtitles (optional bouncing ball).
How is FCPX supposed to import a project using that filter?
Even if it could import it, how does it present itself in the timeline vis-a-vis other FCPX clips?
Will this plugin force a render and wait for completion -- and destroy the UX?
Worse, will the clip just sit there as an unplayable/scrubbable slug?
I have another sequence that has a five-layer video composite using FCP built-in masking constructs -- same questions as above.
Now, you might say "AHA, FCPX doesn't have the compositing capability of FCP7".
Maybe so, and maybe no...
FCPX provides some basic compositing, but relies on the new $50 Motion for any heavy lifting!
Why? Because Motion has compositing capabilities well beyond anything that FCP ever dreamed of -- and no constant re-rendering.
The new Motion has a much closer relationship with FCPX than the FCP7-Motion combination.
The new Motion has all the OpenCL GCD stuff designed and built-in.
Aside: Some have complained that FCPX doesn't handle Adobe multi-layer .psd files. This is true -- but it doesn't need to Motion handles them quite well and very efficiently. ping
I don't know the correct approach, here:
-- Should Apple supply a best-effort FCP7-FCPX project migration tool?
-- Other than point out "won't migrate" slugs, what should Apple do about things that it can't handle.
-- Should they leave legacy projects to be processed by legacy apps running on legacy OSes on legacy hardware?
This is a tough question for "Pros" or anyone with a library of Projects (of whatever app).
Some day you will move to the Latest/Greatest app -- be it FCPX, Avid, Adobe, whatever.
What do you do about your library of projects -- that suddenly, are now "Legacy Projects"
Do you spend your own time to convert them (at your expense)?
What do you do to compensate for features/filters/plugins that are not available on the new system?
Do you try to maintain those legacy apps/plugins, OSes, hardware -- so you can go back in a few years and update a client's animated logo (or somesuch)?
If you do, will you even remember how to use those "Legacy Tools" that you haven't touched for years?
What do you tell the client?
Interesting questions!
Maybe, some thought and effort needs to be spent finding a way to "encapsulate" your work so you can move forward without the shackles of "Legacy Tools".
The New Coke story is actually a lot more complicated. But just a brief summary.
In the early 80's Pepsi was doing these blind taste tests they called "The Pepsi Challenge". During the Pepsi Challenge, most people actually preferred Pepsi. Coke performed its own blind taste test and discovered the same results. Most people preferred Pepsi.
Coke freaks out - over reacts and creates New Coke.
What they did not realize is that in just a limited sipping of the drink. The sweater taste of Pepsi was preferred because it was just a limited sip.
But over the course of normal soda drinking people overwhelmingly preferred Coke. That is why there was such a visceral backlash against New Coke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlandd
You misunderstand. The reference was to Coca Cola's changing of the Coke formula in 1985 (OK, I had to Google the date). They changed the recipe simply as a change for change's sake and the backlash was enough to force them to own up the debacle and reissue normal Coke as Coke Classic.
No one expected it, but here we stand. In that reality you have to do what you have to do.
I'm liking your commentary Teno,
actually a fair few of us were expecting exactly this kind of release or much worse from at least a year ago, as it dawned on us the work involved. we thought for a long time it it would be QT based- but the thinking changed here too- with it being driven by another engine altogether. AV Foundation / Core Audio/Core Video/Core Animation.
It's a bold move that will pay off over time- but Apple will take a kicking for a bit and people will panic but thats life.
Over the past 10 years the film/television industry has gone through this problem with the transition to High Definition. Prior to this everything was either shot of finished for Standard Definition. Which for the most part looks terrible on high definition television. With the emergence of web streaming/downloading standard definition is pretty much to the point of unacceptable for the web.
So now movies and shows that have been finished for standard definition are "legacy" and pretty much useless for the future. Sometimes this problem is easily solved and sometimes it cannot be so easily solved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
What do you do about your library of projects -- that suddenly, are now "Legacy Projects"
I have one small question: how do you replace (update) footage in FCX ?
Right now I'm working on a small CG clip and I make the edit in FCX. As often is the case I did the edit using an early version of the footage. Now I have all the footage updated (small things that don't matter to the course of the action) but I can't find a way to replace the clips in FCX and keep all the edit work. I even tried to replace the footage on HDD same name and even same length but FCX doesn't recognize the new footage.
Any idea?
Thanks
I don't remember how or where I saw it, but I think you can!
Something like:
1) import the new clips -- likely to a new Event
2) drag the new clip into the project above the old
3) copy from the old clip and paste effects to the new clip
4) disable the old clip
5) replace the old with the new if desired (drag and drop)
This thread represents one of the things I really love/hate about Apple:
Every few years, or so, Apple comes out with a "New Thing" that cuts the cord with the "Current Thing":
-- Apple ][ vs Mac
-- minifloppy vs microfloppy
-- DTB vs USB
-- floppy vs dvd
-- OS 9 vs OS X
-- PCC vs Intel
-- MultiTouch vs Mouse/KB
-- DVD vs nothing
And now, the challenge du jour: FCPX vs FCS/FCP7
Apple is telling us:
Here's where Apple is going! We'd like you to come with us -- but you can stay where you are -- or you can move away.
Damn!
I'm still here...
Now, if there were only a way to load that cassette of AppleSoft BASIC on my iPa2 2 -- I have this neat database app written by Mike Markkula's 13-year-old son's father...
I also don't like the sound of the trouble the professionals are having when it comes to storing their work on remote drives. It seems a symptom of the whole "demoting the mac" thing. I keep hearing Jobs saying "it's in the App".
I like controlling my files and folders, but it sounds like Apple is moving towards an approach where you wont get to do that at all, even in something that is supposed to support professional video editing!
With FCPX you can save your files on any drive you wish:
-- the files must be in Folders name Final Cut Projects and Final Cut Events
-- the above folders must be at the root level
This is so FCPX knows where to look for files.
There are different (but similar) requirements for FCP -- so this is a non-issue. ping
The New Coke story is actually a lot more complicated. But just a brief summary.
In the early 80's Pepsi was doing these blind taste tests they called "The Pepsi Challenge". During the Pepsi Challenge, most people actually preferred Pepsi. Coke performed its own blind taste test and discovered the same results. Most people preferred Pepsi.
Coke freaks out - over reacts and creates New Coke.
What they did not realize is that in just a limited sipping of the drink. The sweater taste of Pepsi was preferred because it was just a limited sip.
But over the course of normal soda drinking people overwhelmingly preferred Coke. That is why there was such a visceral backlash against New Coke.
Trying to stay on topic here. I never believed that new Coke was a real effort to "improve" the product. They merely pretended to be seriously changing it to show people how a Pepsi-like taste is cloyingly sweet, and then exaggerated the reaction against it, and rebranded the original as "classic" so everybody could see that the original was preferable to Pepsi all along. The whole thing was a fake PR operation. No proof, just suspicion. But whether it was a mistake, like they tried to pretend, or a devious PR scheme, it ain't what we're talking about here.
In Apple's case, we could only wish they would at least allow the Final Cut Classic to stay on the shelves, out of respect for all the work the pros have to deal with right now that involves the old architecture. It's the pulling of the plug on them that smacks of the Jobsian/Apple ruthlessness. Do that to your professional user base, the heaviest-weight users you have, and you lose a tremendous amount of good will from people who matter.
It's a PR disaster so far, and it's not whining from the pros just digging in their heels this time.
Yes thank you Graeme. I also do appreciate you bringing some measured thoughtfulness to the discussion.
Quote:
actually a fair few of us were expecting exactly this kind of release or much worse from at least a year ago, as it dawned on us the work involved. we thought for a long time it it would be QT based- but the thinking changed here too- with it being driven by another engine altogether. AV Foundation / Core Audio/Core Video/Core Animation.
Yes exactly. Apple has totally rewritten the foundation of FCP and will have to rebuild everything on top of that. Apple isn't saying exactly what this all means. But I think its pretty clear what they are doing and where this is headed.
Quote:
It's a bold move that will pay off over time- but Apple will take a kicking for a bit and people will panic but thats life.
Yes this is typically the way Apple always does these types of transitions.
In Apple's case, we could only wish they would at least allow the Final Cut Classic to stay on the shelves, out of respect for all the work the pros have to deal with right now that involves the old architecture. It's the pulling of the plug on them that smacks of the Jobsian/Apple ruthlessness. Do that to your professional user base, the heaviest-weight users you have, and you lose a tremendous amount of good will from people who matter.
It's a PR disaster so far, and it's not whining from the pros just digging in their heels this time.
It is a PR disaster -- but it sure gets all the issues out in the open!
Maybe a good way to handle this would be for Apple to:
1) continue support (bug fixes) for "classic" for 1 year
2) supply a software update to all the apps to allow multiple "seats" per copy
3) sell new "seat" serial numbers at the online store or the Mac App Store
You could install new seats from your existing disks, then update the registration with the new seat serial.
Here's a question we may want to ask ourselves, though:
Would we rather have Apple supporting "classic" or using those resource to make FCPX all that it can be (more than FCPS could be) as quickly as possible.
If a year's support of FCPS delays FCPX upgrades for a year would it be worth waiting?
If not, knowing that FCS is EOLd, should you stay where you are, should you move ahead or should you move away?
How long will whichever move you choose take? A year?
When Apple transitioned from OS 9 to OS X they were not nearly has popular or as strong in the market as they are now. That was by magnitudes a much bigger transition and caused far more disruption than going from FCP 7 to FCP X.
There was such upheaval that there were those at the time who predicted that people will just abandon the Mac altogether and move to Windows. There were those at the time who declared it a disaster. But it seems to have all worked out OK.
Other Apple PR disasters that went away as quickly as they came.
Apple's abandonment of the floppy disc
Mac transition from Power PC to Intel
Apple's abandonment of FireWire 400
Antenagate
iOS global positioning database
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
It's a PR disaster so far, and it's not whining from the pros just digging in their heels this time.
It is a PR disaster -- but it sure gets all the issues out in the open!
Maybe a good way to handle this would be for Apple to:
1) continue support (bug fixes) for "classic" for 1 year
2) supply a software update to all the apps to allow multiple "seats" per copy
3) sell new "seat" serial numbers at the online store or the Mac App Store
You could install new seats from your existing disks, then update the registration with the new seat serial.
Here's a question we may want to ask ourselves, though:
Would we rather have Apple supporting "classic" or using those resource to make FCPX all that it can be (more than FCPS could be) as quickly as possible.
If a year's support of FCPS delays FCPX upgrades for a year would it be worth waiting?
If not, knowing that FCS is EOLd, should you stay where you are, should you move ahead or should you move away?
How long will whichever move you choose take? A year?
When do you start?
Leave it as is, don't waste an ounce of resources fixing bugs, but sell new copies or serial numbers to people stuck in the old environment for the indefinite future.
In return, we all start cheerfully adapting, just as before. But like with iMovie 6, only this is ten times more significant because we're not talking about home movies here, acknowledge your customers' past loyalty and/or preferences by saying something or doing something to help them with the transition.
Maybe I've been living in L.A. too long, but I see this huge reservoir of good will and creative capital built around Final Cut being tossed away cavalierly. It seems like a slap in the face, like someone here said. Apple has great public relations, but sometimes not so great customer relations. All they have to do is say a few words and not round up the old stock for shredding, or whatever they do with it. I know, too emotional . . .
I think David Pogue sums it up well. Essentially keep things in proper perspective - have some patience. If you don't like where FCP X is going you have alternatives.
Professional editors should (1) learn to tell what?s really missing from what?s just been moved around, (2) recognize that there?s no obligation to switch from the old program yet, (3) monitor the progress of FCP X and its ecosystem, and especially (4) be willing to consider that a radical new design may be unfamiliar, but may, in the long term, actually be better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
Maybe I've been living in L.A. too long, but I see this huge reservoir of good will and creative capital built around Final Cut being tossed away cavalierly. It seems like a slap in the face, like someone here said. Apple has great public relations, but sometimes not so great customer relations. All they have to do is say a few words and not round up the old stock for shredding, or whatever they do with it. I know, too emotional . . .
When Apple transitioned from OS 9 to OS X they were not nearly has popular or as strong in the market as they are now. That was by magnitudes a much bigger transition and caused far more disruption than going from FCP 7 to FCP X.
There was such upheaval that there were those at the time who predicted that people will just abandon the Mac altogether and move to Windows. There were those at the time who declared it a disaster. But it seems to have all worked out OK.
Other Apple PR disasters that went away as quickly as they came.
Apple's abandonment of the floppy disc
Mac transition from Power PC to Intel
Apple's abandonment of FireWire 400
Antenagate
iOS global positioning database
I take your point, and this will work out okay in time too. But I'd say this is different, because of the slice of Apple's customer base that's being affected.
I'd like to have figures, don't, can only speculate from my L.A. centric point of view, but I would venture that Apple gets more credibility out of their NLE customer base than from any other slice of their market. Sound and graphics are also huge, but nowhere near the weight of the movie biz.
But I'm not on the inside. Maybe there's way more Avid and Premiere out there than I know about.
Edit: just saw your post above, thanks, I'm taking it under advisement. And I will be following FCP X, of course.
1) Both The FCPX Project file and the FCPX Event file are SQLite db files -- this is not the case for either FCP7 or iMovie.
2) All the FCPX Event Analysis files (Color, People, Stabilization) are XML files.
3) FCPX knows if Motion is installed, or not.
4) FCPX has some plugins built-in -- media transformers like AVCHD, Compressor and Motion -- Motion is within a folder named MediaProviders
This suggests a couple of things:
1) FCPX is using SQL where possible for storage and processing efficiency -- a lot smaller files than XML files and a lot easier/quicker to search, parse, etc.
2) FCPX is using XML files where it expects external interfaces
3) Supporting apps, like Motion can bind themselves more tightly to FCPX than to FCP. Motion almost appears as a popup function in FCPX rather than a separate app.
You don't really round-trip to Motion -- rather you invoke and dismiss it as a tool or a sub-app.
Aside: if you like multiple track editing, you'll love Motion.
4) I suspect a more powerful Color (if needed) will act the came way.
5) I've never used FCP tape output, but I have used Log and Capture. Thinking about it -- it would be pretty easy for Apple (or a 3rd-party) to write a Tape Input Log and Capture app that integrates with FCPX (right along side Motion as a Media Provider)
5) I suspect that most of the missing "Pro" features could be implemented as separate apps for those who need them (willing to pay for them). Done properly, these would closely bind themselves to FCPX -- and become an integral part of the workflow.
Comments
Remember when the iPhone first came out. People complained about what it could not do. Did Apple scramble to add those features simply because people complained. Or has Apple been systematically and methodically adding features over time?
Understood... BUT... imagine if iPhone 5 came out and it did NOT have MMS, FaceTime, MultiTasking, Maps or even simultaneous voice/data... People would (just like now) have a sh*t-fit about it... and rightfully so. Why can't you see that perspective?
No I don't think that is it. The problem is that FCP created the concept of cheap, quality editing. And now that idea has rippled (ooh edit pun!) through the industry to the point that clients more and more don't want to pay fair rates for much of anything. The agency clients all have cost consultants who basically dictate what can be paid for a job. The agency gets less, the production company gets less and the editorial shop gets less. All because some bean counter doof thinks he knows what everything costs. And let me tell you, they don't. GSD&M voluntarily resigned BMW because the BMW cost consultants made it very difficult for the agency to make a decent profit. We had a hell of a time bidding jobs for BMW because they absolutely, under no circumstances would allow overages. If a job went south and ran over - too bad, you have to eat it. Even if it was BMW who made the last minute changes.
So after ten years of editing on the cheap, things have really started to unravel. Doesn't matter how much your edit software/hardware costs. People don't want to pay fair rates. And that is why no one really want to change edit horses midstream.
My first Avid system cost $75,000. It was expensive, but that is what it took to get into a highly skilled position with good $ compensation to go with it. It kept the amateurs out of the biz. Now, the line between serious pro and pro-sumer has been blurred. I find myself competing for work against talentless computer geeks, who have highly refined computer skills that pass as artistic talent and confuse clients. Then I get calls from creatives who complain the editor they chose can't tell a story. Hmmm.
When Apple transitioned form OS 9 to OS X. Apple was abandoning support for OS 9 and forcing everyone to buy all of their apps all over again for OS X. People were very upset about that.
OS X 1.0 performance was sluggish it was buggy. Apple wasn't transitioning OS 9 API's and Apple was breaking many of the old OS 9 protocols and implementing new protocols in OS X. Many of the newer OS X API's and protocols were not yet complete for software developers to work with.
That transition was far far messier and far more disruptive than what is going on with FCP X right now.
From my time as an Apple user. I've seen it over and over. Apple will force these admittedly disruptive and aggressive transitions. In the short term it makes people really angry. But in the long term everything end up working out for the better.
Understood... BUT... imagine if iPhone 5 came out and it did NOT have MMS, FaceTime, MultiTasking, Maps or even simultaneous voice/data... People would (just like now) have a sh*t-fit about it... and rightfully so. Why can't you see that perspective?
Today every kid out of film school has a Canon 7D, MacBook Pro, FCP, and a dream. Talent may be optional. Its just the way things are.
My first Avid system cost $75,000. It was expensive, but that is what it took to get into a highly skilled position with good $ compensation to go with it. It kept the amateurs out of the biz. Now, the line between serious pro and pro-sumer has been blurred. I find myself competing for work against talentless computer geeks, who have highly refined computer skills that pass as artistic talent and confuse clients. Then I get calls from creatives who complain the editor they chose can't tell a story. Hmmm.
Originally Posted by jlandd
The best that can come out of this is that it becomes Apple's "New Coke". They bring back discontinued Coke Classic and everyone hugs.
What? You think Apple is run by people who just want to make colored sugar water?
Final Cut Pro 7 does not go away when you install X. It still works. I'm thinking it won't be long until the hullaballoo dies down and pros get embarrassed.
You misunderstand. The reference was to Coca Cola's changing of the Coke formula in 1985 (OK, I had to Google the date). They changed the recipe simply as a change for change's sake and the backlash was enough to force them to own up the debacle and reissue normal Coke as Coke Classic.
Also, everyone who is giving the obvious advice of using FCP7 instead as the answer misses the point. Editors are not saying "OMG! We can't work anymore!" They're saying "The team behind this product has no idea what goes into a pro edit job. Do I feel like sticking with these guys to see what else they come up with?"
There is no reason on God's green earth why audio assignments could not have been written into this overhaul except that it wasn't on the list of priorities. It has nothing to do with the task of creating a new 64 bit program. If you talk to someone who does audio for video in a large facility they'll say there can be no audio sweetening by them for a FCPX project (since there is also no more EDL,XML or OMF support, which *possibly* one can point to some valid reasons for killing), which rules out, well, the whole upper strata of video production.
No one is panicking they can't work. They just have no use for this version as is currently is and would like a 64 bit FCP with 2011 features that would be useful to them.
Considering that FCP X can import iMovie projects but not Final Cut Pro 7 projects, the "iMovie Pro" designation seems somewhat appropriate.
It may seem so...
But, the iMovie Project/Event structure is a subset of the FCPX structure -- so relatively easy to import.
FCP structures as we know them can be very complex -- to name a few:
-- multiple tracks
-- multi-layer compositing
-- many supplied and 3rd-party filters, effects, etc.
-- different overall structure (Project, Sequences, Bins)
-- loosely defined and enforced structure
-- much more granular control
FCP as we know it is much more flexible -- but this has costs.
I suspect that Apple and/or 3rd parties will provide tools to migrate many FCP projects to FCPX.
One of the exciting things about FCPX is its performance -- use of all CPU/GPU cores, top priority UI with background importing, transcoding, analysis. The background pauses/resumes as needed to maintain a consistent UI experience -- avoiding the beach ball if at all possible.
This is accomplished by very savvy design and implemented using OpenCL and GCD to exploit the OS and hardware to deliver the best possible user experience.
FCPX is the first Apple app (that I have seen) to do this -- it may be the poster child for a new type of app.
And, therein lies a problem -- how do you migrate FCP projects with a lot of stuff that doesn't even know about multiple CPU cores, let alone OpenCL and GCD?
For example I have a 3rd-party Karaoke plugin that does synchronized subtitles (optional bouncing ball).
How is FCPX supposed to import a project using that filter?
Even if it could import it, how does it present itself in the timeline vis-a-vis other FCPX clips?
Will this plugin force a render and wait for completion -- and destroy the UX?
Worse, will the clip just sit there as an unplayable/scrubbable slug?
I have another sequence that has a five-layer video composite using FCP built-in masking constructs -- same questions as above.
Now, you might say "AHA, FCPX doesn't have the compositing capability of FCP7".
Maybe so, and maybe no...
FCPX provides some basic compositing, but relies on the new $50 Motion for any heavy lifting!
Why? Because Motion has compositing capabilities well beyond anything that FCP ever dreamed of -- and no constant re-rendering.
The new Motion has a much closer relationship with FCPX than the FCP7-Motion combination.
The new Motion has all the OpenCL GCD stuff designed and built-in.
Aside: Some have complained that FCPX doesn't handle Adobe multi-layer .psd files. This is true -- but it doesn't need to Motion handles them quite well and very efficiently. ping
I don't know the correct approach, here:
-- Should Apple supply a best-effort FCP7-FCPX project migration tool?
-- Other than point out "won't migrate" slugs, what should Apple do about things that it can't handle.
-- Should they leave legacy projects to be processed by legacy apps running on legacy OSes on legacy hardware?
This is a tough question for "Pros" or anyone with a library of Projects (of whatever app).
Some day you will move to the Latest/Greatest app -- be it FCPX, Avid, Adobe, whatever.
What do you do about your library of projects -- that suddenly, are now "Legacy Projects"
Do you spend your own time to convert them (at your expense)?
What do you do to compensate for features/filters/plugins that are not available on the new system?
Do you try to maintain those legacy apps/plugins, OSes, hardware -- so you can go back in a few years and update a client's animated logo (or somesuch)?
If you do, will you even remember how to use those "Legacy Tools" that you haven't touched for years?
What do you tell the client?
Interesting questions!
Maybe, some thought and effort needs to be spent finding a way to "encapsulate" your work so you can move forward without the shackles of "Legacy Tools".
In the early 80's Pepsi was doing these blind taste tests they called "The Pepsi Challenge". During the Pepsi Challenge, most people actually preferred Pepsi. Coke performed its own blind taste test and discovered the same results. Most people preferred Pepsi.
Coke freaks out - over reacts and creates New Coke.
What they did not realize is that in just a limited sipping of the drink. The sweater taste of Pepsi was preferred because it was just a limited sip.
But over the course of normal soda drinking people overwhelmingly preferred Coke. That is why there was such a visceral backlash against New Coke.
You misunderstand. The reference was to Coca Cola's changing of the Coke formula in 1985 (OK, I had to Google the date). They changed the recipe simply as a change for change's sake and the backlash was enough to force them to own up the debacle and reissue normal Coke as Coke Classic.
No one expected it, but here we stand. In that reality you have to do what you have to do.
I'm liking your commentary Teno,
actually a fair few of us were expecting exactly this kind of release or much worse from at least a year ago, as it dawned on us the work involved. we thought for a long time it it would be QT based- but the thinking changed here too- with it being driven by another engine altogether. AV Foundation / Core Audio/Core Video/Core Animation.
It's a bold move that will pay off over time- but Apple will take a kicking for a bit and people will panic but thats life.
don't know if you saw my earlier post
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=181
So now movies and shows that have been finished for standard definition are "legacy" and pretty much useless for the future. Sometimes this problem is easily solved and sometimes it cannot be so easily solved.
What do you do about your library of projects -- that suddenly, are now "Legacy Projects"
I have one small question: how do you replace (update) footage in FCX ?
Right now I'm working on a small CG clip and I make the edit in FCX. As often is the case I did the edit using an early version of the footage. Now I have all the footage updated (small things that don't matter to the course of the action) but I can't find a way to replace the clips in FCX and keep all the edit work. I even tried to replace the footage on HDD same name and even same length but FCX doesn't recognize the new footage.
Any idea?
Thanks
I don't remember how or where I saw it, but I think you can!
Something like:
1) import the new clips -- likely to a new Event
2) drag the new clip into the project above the old
3) copy from the old clip and paste effects to the new clip
4) disable the old clip
5) replace the old with the new if desired (drag and drop)
This thread represents one of the things I really love/hate about Apple:
Every few years, or so, Apple comes out with a "New Thing" that cuts the cord with the "Current Thing":
-- Apple ][ vs Mac
-- minifloppy vs microfloppy
-- DTB vs USB
-- floppy vs dvd
-- OS 9 vs OS X
-- PCC vs Intel
-- MultiTouch vs Mouse/KB
-- DVD vs nothing
And now, the challenge du jour: FCPX vs FCS/FCP7
Apple is telling us:
Here's where Apple is going! We'd like you to come with us -- but you can stay where you are -- or you can move away.
Damn!
I'm still here...
Now, if there were only a way to load that cassette of AppleSoft BASIC on my iPa2 2 -- I have this neat database app written by Mike Markkula's 13-year-old son's father...
I also don't like the sound of the trouble the professionals are having when it comes to storing their work on remote drives. It seems a symptom of the whole "demoting the mac" thing. I keep hearing Jobs saying "it's in the App".
I like controlling my files and folders, but it sounds like Apple is moving towards an approach where you wont get to do that at all, even in something that is supposed to support professional video editing!
With FCPX you can save your files on any drive you wish:
-- the files must be in Folders name Final Cut Projects and Final Cut Events
-- the above folders must be at the root level
This is so FCPX knows where to look for files.
There are different (but similar) requirements for FCP -- so this is a non-issue. ping
The New Coke story is actually a lot more complicated. But just a brief summary.
In the early 80's Pepsi was doing these blind taste tests they called "The Pepsi Challenge". During the Pepsi Challenge, most people actually preferred Pepsi. Coke performed its own blind taste test and discovered the same results. Most people preferred Pepsi.
Coke freaks out - over reacts and creates New Coke.
What they did not realize is that in just a limited sipping of the drink. The sweater taste of Pepsi was preferred because it was just a limited sip.
But over the course of normal soda drinking people overwhelmingly preferred Coke. That is why there was such a visceral backlash against New Coke.
Trying to stay on topic here. I never believed that new Coke was a real effort to "improve" the product. They merely pretended to be seriously changing it to show people how a Pepsi-like taste is cloyingly sweet, and then exaggerated the reaction against it, and rebranded the original as "classic" so everybody could see that the original was preferable to Pepsi all along. The whole thing was a fake PR operation. No proof, just suspicion. But whether it was a mistake, like they tried to pretend, or a devious PR scheme, it ain't what we're talking about here.
In Apple's case, we could only wish they would at least allow the Final Cut Classic to stay on the shelves, out of respect for all the work the pros have to deal with right now that involves the old architecture. It's the pulling of the plug on them that smacks of the Jobsian/Apple ruthlessness. Do that to your professional user base, the heaviest-weight users you have, and you lose a tremendous amount of good will from people who matter.
It's a PR disaster so far, and it's not whining from the pros just digging in their heels this time.
I'm liking your commentary Teno,
Yes thank you Graeme. I also do appreciate you bringing some measured thoughtfulness to the discussion.
actually a fair few of us were expecting exactly this kind of release or much worse from at least a year ago, as it dawned on us the work involved. we thought for a long time it it would be QT based- but the thinking changed here too- with it being driven by another engine altogether. AV Foundation / Core Audio/Core Video/Core Animation.
Yes exactly. Apple has totally rewritten the foundation of FCP and will have to rebuild everything on top of that. Apple isn't saying exactly what this all means. But I think its pretty clear what they are doing and where this is headed.
It's a bold move that will pay off over time- but Apple will take a kicking for a bit and people will panic but thats life.
Yes this is typically the way Apple always does these types of transitions.
In Apple's case, we could only wish they would at least allow the Final Cut Classic to stay on the shelves, out of respect for all the work the pros have to deal with right now that involves the old architecture. It's the pulling of the plug on them that smacks of the Jobsian/Apple ruthlessness. Do that to your professional user base, the heaviest-weight users you have, and you lose a tremendous amount of good will from people who matter.
It's a PR disaster so far, and it's not whining from the pros just digging in their heels this time.
It is a PR disaster -- but it sure gets all the issues out in the open!
Maybe a good way to handle this would be for Apple to:
1) continue support (bug fixes) for "classic" for 1 year
2) supply a software update to all the apps to allow multiple "seats" per copy
3) sell new "seat" serial numbers at the online store or the Mac App Store
You could install new seats from your existing disks, then update the registration with the new seat serial.
Here's a question we may want to ask ourselves, though:
Would we rather have Apple supporting "classic" or using those resource to make FCPX all that it can be (more than FCPS could be) as quickly as possible.
If a year's support of FCPS delays FCPX upgrades for a year would it be worth waiting?
If not, knowing that FCS is EOLd, should you stay where you are, should you move ahead or should you move away?
How long will whichever move you choose take? A year?
When do you start?
There was such upheaval that there were those at the time who predicted that people will just abandon the Mac altogether and move to Windows. There were those at the time who declared it a disaster. But it seems to have all worked out OK.
Other Apple PR disasters that went away as quickly as they came.
It's a PR disaster so far, and it's not whining from the pros just digging in their heels this time.
It is a PR disaster -- but it sure gets all the issues out in the open!
Maybe a good way to handle this would be for Apple to:
1) continue support (bug fixes) for "classic" for 1 year
2) supply a software update to all the apps to allow multiple "seats" per copy
3) sell new "seat" serial numbers at the online store or the Mac App Store
You could install new seats from your existing disks, then update the registration with the new seat serial.
Here's a question we may want to ask ourselves, though:
Would we rather have Apple supporting "classic" or using those resource to make FCPX all that it can be (more than FCPS could be) as quickly as possible.
If a year's support of FCPS delays FCPX upgrades for a year would it be worth waiting?
If not, knowing that FCS is EOLd, should you stay where you are, should you move ahead or should you move away?
How long will whichever move you choose take? A year?
When do you start?
Leave it as is, don't waste an ounce of resources fixing bugs, but sell new copies or serial numbers to people stuck in the old environment for the indefinite future.
In return, we all start cheerfully adapting, just as before. But like with iMovie 6, only this is ten times more significant because we're not talking about home movies here, acknowledge your customers' past loyalty and/or preferences by saying something or doing something to help them with the transition.
Maybe I've been living in L.A. too long, but I see this huge reservoir of good will and creative capital built around Final Cut being tossed away cavalierly. It seems like a slap in the face, like someone here said. Apple has great public relations, but sometimes not so great customer relations. All they have to do is say a few words and not round up the old stock for shredding, or whatever they do with it. I know, too emotional . . .
Professional editors should (1) learn to tell what?s really missing from what?s just been moved around, (2) recognize that there?s no obligation to switch from the old program yet, (3) monitor the progress of FCP X and its ecosystem, and especially (4) be willing to consider that a radical new design may be unfamiliar, but may, in the long term, actually be better.
Maybe I've been living in L.A. too long, but I see this huge reservoir of good will and creative capital built around Final Cut being tossed away cavalierly. It seems like a slap in the face, like someone here said. Apple has great public relations, but sometimes not so great customer relations. All they have to do is say a few words and not round up the old stock for shredding, or whatever they do with it. I know, too emotional . . .
When Apple transitioned from OS 9 to OS X they were not nearly has popular or as strong in the market as they are now. That was by magnitudes a much bigger transition and caused far more disruption than going from FCP 7 to FCP X.
There was such upheaval that there were those at the time who predicted that people will just abandon the Mac altogether and move to Windows. There were those at the time who declared it a disaster. But it seems to have all worked out OK.
Other Apple PR disasters that went away as quickly as they came.
I take your point, and this will work out okay in time too. But I'd say this is different, because of the slice of Apple's customer base that's being affected.
I'd like to have figures, don't, can only speculate from my L.A. centric point of view, but I would venture that Apple gets more credibility out of their NLE customer base than from any other slice of their market. Sound and graphics are also huge, but nowhere near the weight of the movie biz.
But I'm not on the inside. Maybe there's way more Avid and Premiere out there than I know about.
Edit: just saw your post above, thanks, I'm taking it under advisement. And I will be following FCP X, of course.
1) Both The FCPX Project file and the FCPX Event file are SQLite db files -- this is not the case for either FCP7 or iMovie.
2) All the FCPX Event Analysis files (Color, People, Stabilization) are XML files.
3) FCPX knows if Motion is installed, or not.
4) FCPX has some plugins built-in -- media transformers like AVCHD, Compressor and Motion -- Motion is within a folder named MediaProviders
This suggests a couple of things:
1) FCPX is using SQL where possible for storage and processing efficiency -- a lot smaller files than XML files and a lot easier/quicker to search, parse, etc.
2) FCPX is using XML files where it expects external interfaces
3) Supporting apps, like Motion can bind themselves more tightly to FCPX than to FCP. Motion almost appears as a popup function in FCPX rather than a separate app.
You don't really round-trip to Motion -- rather you invoke and dismiss it as a tool or a sub-app.
Aside: if you like multiple track editing, you'll love Motion.
4) I suspect a more powerful Color (if needed) will act the came way.
5) I've never used FCP tape output, but I have used Log and Capture. Thinking about it -- it would be pretty easy for Apple (or a 3rd-party) to write a Tape Input Log and Capture app that integrates with FCPX (right along side Motion as a Media Provider)
5) I suspect that most of the missing "Pro" features could be implemented as separate apps for those who need them (willing to pay for them). Done properly, these would closely bind themselves to FCPX -- and become an integral part of the workflow.
To me, FCPX looks like a glass half-full!